User talk:Stongey

Nomination for deletion of Template:IUCN Map
Template:IUCN Map has been nominated for deletion. You are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for discussion page. Dirk Beetstra T C 05:56, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

I have also reverted all of the additions of this template - the IUCN (who are themselves linking to the map) is often already extensively linked throughout. It makes more sense to link to the species-page on IUCN, that is directly linked data, then to the map (which is slightly more indirect). Moreover, the species pages are more informative than the map alone. I hope this explains. --Dirk Beetstra T C 10:48, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

page ranges in references
I saw somewhere that the best way to have these is two digits, hence "146-66" and "146-49" - don't remember where I saw that first but i think it was on some style page or other. Since then I've used that on the hundreds of articles - any reason why you prefer all digits? Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:07, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * The Chicago style does page range numbering the way you describe. I don't have a strong feeling either way, I just did it because:
 * not all refs on the page had the same style
 * this was actually the first page I've edited that I've seen it done in the Chicago style
 * the wikipedia cite book template example are all explicitly indicated not abbreviated in the Chicago style
 * for me, using a template is using code, so it should be in the logic behind the template to display the template parameters according to a specific style, that way, the parameters can be more easily translated into ::different styles, different languages, etc.
 * I wonder if the general reader is familiar with Chicago style ranges...? Do we really lose anything by spelling out the pages explicitly? Succinctness perhaps...?
 * That all said, it seemed like a good idea at the time, but I'm not married to it, as long as a given article is consistent throughout.
 * Stongey (talk) 19:56, 31 August 2014 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Agree this is one of those fiddley things that it doesn't warrant losing too much sleep over. I wonder about changing the template as an example.... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 20:38, 31 August 2014 (UTC)

Changing citation styles
If articles have a consistent citation style, please do not change it without first seeking consensus (see WP:Citing sources), the way you did at the Black-throated gray warbler article. Thank you, &mdash;innotata 00:49, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * Okay, but my question is how the citations is that article were consistent? Some of the citations were harvard, some were not. Some were named, some were not.Stongey (talk) 01:09, 2 November 2014 (UTC)
 * All the sources for which a specific page range of the work (books rather than journal articles and websites) is cited use Harvard citations. It's as simple as that. When none of the sources have more than one page range cited, it isn't neccessary to use this formatting, but it is a consistent style and can be helpful. I have no objection to moving the footnotes into the Reflist template, since that doesn't change the citation style. &mdash;innotata 01:19, 2 November 2014 (UTC)